It may in fact be true that the global war on terror may be bigger in our minds than in physical objective reality. If one looks at the issue from a pure value free "transcendent" materialist perspective (think of the refrain from the old Jefferson Airplane song "Eskimo Blue Day"----"say it plainly the human name doesn't mean shit to a tree") a pretty good argument can be made the war on terror is just a blip on the death radar screen. Deaths from terrorism are a mere drop in the Grim Reaper's daily takings bucket. About 150,000 people die daily from a variety of causes and maladies (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe). That is about 55 million people a year---150,000 here, 150,000 there---after a while we are talking about serious numbers.
So why is it that the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the latest war on Israel, and the capturing of 24 Islamic airline plotters in Britain etc. capture the imagination and light the passions of most sentient human beings? After all, even if the home grown British Pakistani Muslims were to have succeeded only 3000 people would have been killed (10 planes times 300) a mere 2% variation from the average daily actions of the Grim Reaper man. Perhaps we should take a more enlightened view and recognize that there is only so much we as America can accomplish. Why push our values on the rest of the world---it just causes more chaos. It is a big dark Universe out there--who is to say we are "Right"? Let's just figure out how to negotiate with those who feel victimized and we should be able to just move on.
Surely, the reader recognizes this as a rhetorical, absurd, and perhaps a straw man line of questioning---correct? Sticking momentarily to just materialist Eskimo Blue Day think----maybe its not the current numbers that matter, but the potential larger numbers that matter in the future. When the Ahmadinejads, the Nazrollahs, the bin Ladens, the Wahabbists, and the rest of the anti-Great/Little Satan crowd gets their hands on more powerful weapons than plastic gelatin in Gatorade jars they can up that 150,000 per day death habit pretty quickly. So on that score alone we should care. But most Americans who support the war against Islamic terrorists do so because they also find their belief system abhorrent and those who explicitly or implicitly support them equally abhorrent. Its not just about numbers; it is also about justice.
But there are those who believe that the US (or really "Bush") has raised the probability of greater deaths happening.He is the dangerous one and he is the one who could cause that 150,000 number to spike higher. Their anger is directed toward him, not the Islamasists. We should have just stuck to the old realpolitik containment approach---and live with those occasional death blips on the screen. We need to understand them and negotiate with them.
Which comes to the topic of Ned Lamont (or "Mr. Ned"). I realize politicians are prone to be mute when their views are non-existent. But is it possible to be more juvenile and absurd than Ned Lamont when it comes to his stated foreign policy views? On his website Ned Lamont for Senate the candidate tells us "where I stand on the issues". We learn that the War in Iraq has "diverted too much attention from our needs back home"---the new Eskimo Blue Day democrats don't even pretend anymore that the war in Iraq has diverted our attention from the war on terror---remember Torah Bora? Now it has diverted our attention from our "crisis in health care" and from preventing guys like Lamont to heroically prevent "special interests from writing the rules".
When we dig further on his website we discover that if Bush had only negotiated with Abbas (while still "President", didn't his party lose to Hamas?--maybe Mr. Ned missed that news day) a peace accord could have been reached between the Palestinians and Israel. We also discover that the US focus in Iraq came at the expense of this Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Talk about a September 10th mindset. Where has he been for the last 10 years? He claims to believe the fight against global Islamic fascism really is about Palestine and Israel. The Islamic fanatacists have even stopped pushing that canard.
Do these guys really believe this? Is it all about negotiating a peace settlement between Israel and Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, bla bla, etc. etc.? Maybe he has missed the fact that there is no map of Israel in the Middle East. Perhaps he has also missed the various pronouncements of that Ahmadinejad guy---who forecasts the return of the 12th Imam (the 12th who?). ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis: Understanding Ahmadinejad. Yes, we must return to the peace table so we can quickly get back to fighting those special interest groups who are writing America's rules.
While we are at it, just where are the American "moderate" Muslims on all of this? They must drool when they see the Mr. Neds of the world coming there way. One thing we know for sure, there are no Eskimo Blue Day Muslims. They know their interests, beliefs and what it takes to reach their goals. Mr Ned believes that we need to negotiate with the Arab world to resolve the Palestinian question--then when that is done, we can get back to the real problems of the day. Does CAIR (the Council on Islamic-American Relations) believe this? Cannot find that one on their website. They do tell us, however, that the US unconditionally supports Israel because of the Jewish Lobby and the Christian Right ( Why America Gives Israel Unconditional Support). Perhaps those are the special interest groups Mr Ned is referring to who "write our rules" that he wants to go to Washington to fight.
Mr. Ned and those like him may not be morons, but if they are not who can tell the difference? There is a worldwide group of Muslim fanatics who want to destroy us---at least their words and actions indicate that---is that enough evidence? Apparently not for Mr. Ned who is still back in the 90s negotiating with Arafat---or is it Abbas?--whatever--lets just get it done so we can get back to the real issues of the day---prescription drugs for seniors.